Kerala High Court
Nettoor Sreedharan vs P.V. Chandran on 22 May, 2025
2025:KER:35185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
RSA NO. 248 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.11.2024 IN AS
NO.22 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2013
IN OS NO.66 OF 2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
NETTOOR SREEDHARAN
AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMBU, RETIRED DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR, RESIDING AT SREYAS'
SIVAPURAM AMSOM, MALLANNUR DESOM, PO
MALLANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 670 701.
BY ADV
R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6/DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 5 &
ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED IN APPEAL ON THE DEATH FIRST
DEFENDANT:
1 P.V. CHANDRAN
MANAGING EDITOR, MATHRUBHUMI DAILY,
PO THANA, KANNUR., PIN - 670 012.
2 M. KESAVA MENON
EDITOR, MATHRUBHUMI DAILY, PO THANA,
KANNUR., PIN - 670 012.
2025:KER:35185
R.S.A No.248 of 2025 2
3 V.U. MATHUKUTTY
CORRESPONDENT, MATHRUBHUMI DAILY,
P.O. THANA, KANNUR., PIN - 670 012.
4 A.C. MATHEW
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RETD), MORNING STAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, PUSHPAGIRI, TALIPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670 141.
5 M.V.SREYAMS KUMAR
S/O.M.P.VERRENDRA KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MATHRUBHUM NEWSPAPER, ANANDANMANDIRAM,
PULIYARMALA, KALPETTA NORTH.P.O WAYANAD
DSITRICT,, PIN - 673 122.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35185
R.S.A No.248 of 2025 3
EASWARAN S., J.
----------------------------
RSA No.248 of 2025
------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The present appeal arises out of the dismissal of O.S.No.66/2011 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.22/2014, on the files of the Sub Court, Thalassery.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was instituted for damages and injunction on account of an alleged news report that came in the Mathrubhumi daily Kannur Edition on 10.04.2010. As per the said news report, the defendants had published certain malicious article against the plaintiff when he was working as Village Officer in Sivapuram Village. The content of the said article pertains to an alleged swindling of 112 acres 2025:KER:35185 R.S.A No.248 of 2025 4 of land, which was reserved for the landless people. The plaintiff contended that the publication which was made by the defendants was per se untrue and it was purposefully made with an intention to defeat the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed damages to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- .
3. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by raising the following contentions. According to the defendants, the article in the newspaper was published based on a registration of a crime against the plaintiff by the Vigilance Department as per enquiry initiated vide proceedings No. VE 15/04/10 KNR. As a follow-up of that proceedings, an FIR was registered in the Vigilance Court as VC No. 10/2007. Thus, it was contended that, since the article was published with a bona fide intention as per the facts gathered from reliable sources, the same cannot be evidently defamatory, and therefore, the article falls within the purview of freedom of Press. On behalf of the 2025:KER:35185 R.S.A No.248 of 2025 5 plaintiffs, Exts. A1 to A24 documents were marked, and on behalf of the defendants, a copy of the FIR was marked as Ext.B1. PW1 to PW3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff, whereas DW1 was examined on behalf of the defendants. The trial court on appreciation of evidence framed the following issues:
"7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed.
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?
3) Whether the cause of action alleged is true
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
damages against the defendants as prayed for?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?
6) Relief and cost?"
4. On appreciation of the evidence and pleadings on record, the trial court came to a conclusion that the news article, which was published, does not amount to a 2025:KER:35185 R.S.A No.248 of 2025 6 defamatory one. Though it was found that there was a slight error of facts in the publication, going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another; [AIR 1995 SC 264], the burden of proof to claim damages on account of a tortious liability being solely on the shoulders of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not discharged the said burden, the defendants were entitled for the protection of the fact that no malice could be attributed against the said publication. Though the plaintiff carried forward to challenge an appeal before the sub-court, the same was also dismissed.
5. Heard Sri. R.Surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. On consideration of the submissions of Sri.R.Surendran, this Court does not find any reason to consider whether such appreciation interferes with the 2025:KER:35185 R.S.A No.248 of 2025 7 concurrent findings, though the evidence of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court is perverse or not.
This Court is of the considered view that, on a close reading of the judgment of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court, no perversity in the appreciation of evidence could be made out.
7. On a perusal of Ext.A1, a copy of which is handed over to this Court for consideration, it is seen that what is published in Ext.A1 is that vigilance case has been registered as against four accused, of which the plaintiff was the 3rd accused, in respect of land grant case for 112 acres. Though, in Ext.A1 it is stated that a final report has been filed, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said statement is wrong inasmuch as the report was filed much later after the alleged news article was published.
8. It is true that for a tortious liability, a suit for damages for malicious publication will lie. However, it is 2025:KER:35185 R.S.A No.248 of 2025 8 to be noted that in such cases, the burden is on the shoulders of the plaintiff to establish that the defamatory article was published wrongfully, and further that it was with a malicious intention to tarnish the image of the plaintiff. On facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the publication was without any basis. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the 3rd accused in Ext.A1 FIR registered by the Vigilance Authority. Even now, the case against the plaintiff is pending. The plaintiff had no case that he was exonerated at the time of the publication of the article. What is now attributed towards Ext.A1 is that at the time of the publication of the article, the Vigilance had not submitted the final report after completing the enquiry. Such an error on facts which has crept in the publication of Ext.A1 would not amount to a malicious intention. This fact has been concurrently found by both the courts below. A reading of the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment of the trial court, this 2025:KER:35185 R.S.A No.248 of 2025 9 Court is not persuaded to hold that appreciation of facts by both the courts below are perverse warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is raised for consideration in this appeal. Hence, this Court is not inclined to call upon the respondents to answer the points raised by the appellant in the appeal.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S. JUDGE AMR